Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6875 (RAJ)

M/S AGRAWAL TENT HOUSE v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SAW/108/2025 · 2025-02-19

Bhuwan Goyal, Inderjeet Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:7250-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 108/2025 M/s Agrawal Tent House, Having Its Registered Office At A-11, Jhotwara Road, Near Power House, Jaipur-302016 Through Its Sole Proprietor Namely Murari Lal Agrawal. ----Appellant Versus 1. Jaipur Development Authority, Having Its Registered Office At Ram Kishor Vyas Bhawan, Indra Circle, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur-302004, Rajasthan Through Commissioner. 2. Deputy Commissioner (Store), Jaipur Development Authority, At Ram Kishor Vyas Bhawan, Indra Circle, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur-302004, Rajasthan Through Commissioner. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devanshu Saini For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 19/02/2025 The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the interim order passed in favour of petitioner was vacated, however, while passing of order dated 30.01.2025, the proceedings of the NIT shall subject to final outcome of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the facts and grounds involve in the writ petition and the interim order has wrongly been vacated. [2025:RJ-JP:7250-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-108/2025] We have perused the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge and find that when the learned Single Judge has passed the said order mentioned in their para No.7 that “it is apparently because of non disclosure of correct facts by the petitioner in the writ petition.” We are in complete agreement with the view that the learned Single Judge while vacating of the interim order specifically mentioned that the petitioner conceal the material facts in his writ petition, therefore, this appeal is dismissed. In that view of the matter, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J NEERU/87